State, federal accountability systems send conflicting messages, O’Connell says
Published: September 22, 2009
California schools continue to make “modest and incremental” progress toward reaching the state’s academic growth target, according to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, with 42 percent of all schools—a 6 percent gain—now scoring at least 800 on the Academic Performance Index.
Yet the percentage of schools meeting the federal government’s separate accountability goals slipped slightly, with middle and high schools faring the worst, according to the Accountability Progress Report released by the California Department of Education Sept. 15.
The disparate results of the two accountability systems send “conflicting and often contradictory messages,” said O’Connell, who has been advocating for a “hybrid” accountability system that combines the best of the state and federal models.
“In contrast to the state’s API system, which recognizes improvement across all performance levels, the federal accountability system reflects only the number of students that have reached proficiency on California’s rigorous standards,” O’Connell said.
“Under the federal system, the percentage of students who must meet proficiency has increased significantly this year. Many schools, while still making real academic gains, have fallen short on the federal measure.”
This year, 51 percent of schools made the “adequate yearly progress” required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act, a 1 percent drop from 2008. The total included 61 percent of elementary schools, 29 percent of middle schools, and 37 percent of high schools. Thirty-eight percent of school districts and county offices of education made AYP, down from 41 percent in 2008.
California’s accountability system—which predates NCLB—established five levels of performance on state standards tests: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic and far below basic. “Basic” indicates the student is at grade level and on track to graduate—and to meet entry requirements for the University of California, making that high standard the state’s benchmark for proficiency. When NCLB was enacted, California decided to use that proficiency level for the federal AYP measurement, although most other states adopted a definition of proficiency equivalent only to being at grade level.
After seven years of relatively modest AYP goals, California schools now face the daunting task of achieving 11 percent growth each year until they reach 100 percent proficiency by the federal deadline of 2014. The number of schools that missed AYP goals and landed in Program Improvement for the first time was 675 this year—2½ times the number that went into PI last year. In all, 2,796 schools are now in PI, while just 54 exited.
O’Connell said such an abrupt increase in new PI schools may indicate a flaw in the system’s design. “When you see numbers like this, you have to question your accountability system,” he said.
In fact, CDE had projected in 2002 that 99 percent of that state’s schools would fail to reach full proficiency by the 2014 deadline. Referencing that projection, a 2003 analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded the inevitable outcome: “In the latter years of the 12-year timeline, virtually every Title I school will be in Program Improvement.”
This year’s APR showed that almost half—46.1 percent—of Title 1 schools are now in Program Improvement.
The repercussions of “backloading” the expected progress are now being felt, said CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin.
“This is what we expected would happen with such a steep increase in AYP goals,” Plotkin said. “Although the PI sanctions and interventions are supposed to provide choice and help schools improve, they become meaningless when most if not all schools are in PI.”
The APR did offer some good news about the performance of black and Hispanic students, who have improved 15 points on the API compared to 13 and 14 points for Asian and white student subgroups, respectively. Black and Hispanic students displayed higher than average growth across all school levels.
Related links:
Search state and federal accountability data for schools, districts, counties and the state @ www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar